Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2013 9:48:00 PM (view original):It's Game 7 of the World Series. In the bottom of the first inning, somebody runs on the field to the pitcher's mound, pulls out a gun, and blows the pitchers brains out in front of 50,000 eyewitnesses and millions of people watching on TV.

Is he a convicted murderer at that point in time?

No, but you could consider him a murderer before the verdict was read.

Because you have a brain capable of forming opinions based on the facts available. Well, at least I thought you did. Maybe I was wrong.

Wouldn't be the first time you were wrong about something in this thread.

Way to dodge.

A law violating the first amendment is always unconstitutional. As is a law violating the tenth. Even if the Supreme Court hasn't ruled yet.

Is OJ Simpson a murderer? There's evidence suggesting he is. But the courts didn't say he was. So is he, yes or no?

Is DOMA unconstitutional? There's a theory suggesting it probably is. But the courts haven't said it is. So is it, yes or no?

"Unconstitutional" doesn't necessarily mean "as ruled by SCOTUS." In the same way people will judge Ray Lewis, or Aaron Hernandez, or George Zimmerman as murderers, even though the court system hasn't necessarily agreed with them, at least yet for some of those guys. The wall youre both banging your heads against is essentially arguing semantics.

It's an opinion, and that's the point. If SCOTUS uphelds DOMA, people will argue that the law is still unconstitutional, meaning the law goes against what the constitution says the federal government can do. They will argue SCOTUS got it wrong. But it's an opinion. In th same way that many people think that OJ Simpson is a murderer, despite being acquitted.